I was reading an excellent piece in Newsweek as to why some people were quick to believe the lie about health care death panels even after they were informed of the truth:
Some people form and cling to false beliefs about health-care reform (or Obama’s citizenship) despite overwhelming evidence thanks to a mental phenomenon called motivated reasoning, says sociologist Steven Hoffman, visiting assistant professor at the University at Buffalo. “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief,” he says, “people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.” And God knows, in the Internet age there is no dearth of sources to confirm even the most ludicrous claims (my favorite being that the moon landings were faked). “For the most part,” says Hoffman, “people completely ignore contrary information” and are able to “develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information.”
And naturally my mind began thinking about those lovely individuals and groups concerned with supposedly winning “America for Christ, ” colloquially known as the religious right.
Specifically, my mind began thinking about a certain conservative bastardization of the popular site Wikipedia.
Well this new thing I found on the site tops that one.
This is what Conservapedia says about discredited researcher Paul Cameron:
Dr. Paul Cameron, Ph.D. is a scientist who has presented disturbing information about homosexual behavior in the United States. Professional associations have responded by making vague, unsupported accusations about his personal character.
. . . The APA and ASA have issued statements denouncing Cameron for holding positions contrary to theirs. They have not, however, pointed out any specific flaws in his published peer-reviewed scientific papers. So it is patently obvious that they are trying to suppress his findings for political reasons.
Conservapedia’s explanation is extremely inaccurate.
The APA (American Psychological Association) dismissed Cameron for not cooperating when the group began investigating his research methodology. Various psychologists complained about how he was distorting their data.
I sincerely doubt that Conservapedia did any research into the matter, so to help the site out, I’ve attached the link of the letter from the APA officially dismissing Cameron.
And the (ASA) American Sociological Association denounced Cameron because of his bad research techniques. The group was concerned that Cameron was inaccurately being labeled as a sociologist.
The ASA’s statement came after a task force looked at Cameron’s history and techniques. You can read the findings here. And I might point out, the ASA task force did point to specific flaws regarding Cameron’s work and specific complaints made about him.
The irony of Conservapedia’s whitewash of Cameron is felt when one takes into account one of the guidelines of the site:
Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
I found a bigger irony when I looked over the list of Conservapedia Administrators. A good many of them have on their profile that they “have accepted Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior.”
Apparently they love their version of Christian principles so much that they are willing to lie for them.
Editor’s Note – APA letter and ASA report taken from the webpage of Dr. Gregory Herek.
George Oundo, the poster man for a campaign launched by U.S. ex-gaypoliticalleaders to promote vigilantism and arrest against same-sex-attracted persons in Uganda, has reportedly been expelled from his ex-gay organization due to sexual scandal.
Earlier this year, Oundo was a frontman for Martin Ssempa, a violently antigay African pastor who allegedly received substantial sums of money from U.S. global anti-AIDS programs begun under the Bush administration. Instead of combatting AIDS or promoting faith-based health assistance to Africans, Ssempa used the money to launch a string of violent antigay vigilante campaigns monitored by Human Rights Watch.
Hosted by Ssempa, Oundo and fellow ex-gay activists Stephen Langa and Paul Kagaba spent months accusing Uganda’s handful of native-born pro-equality advocates of conducting a massive Western youth-molestation conspiracy against the country. Unskeptical, antigay news media in Uganda lapped up the two ex-gay activists’ gossip and defamed not only gay Ugandans, but also the popular heterosexual Catholic priest Anthony Musaala, a rival to Ssempa. How did Kagaba know that Musaala was gay? Because, Kagaba said, Musaala “regularly holds parties for gays at his residence in Gayaza near Kampala.” Violence by antigay vigilantes, antigay arrests, and antigay hit lists ensued.
GayUganda said today that Oundo has been expelled from Ex-Gay Uganda:
According to Paul Kagaba, Ex-Gay Uganda Chairman, Oundo was taking boys to be ‘sodomised’ to his house. What I could have told Kagaba, and I have known for a few weeks, is that Oundo has been going around asking kuchus for ‘forgiveness’.
We await confirmation from other sources, and given Kagaba’s false accusations against gay Ugandans, his circular firing squad against Oundo must be viewed with some skepticism. However, it also seems quite feasible that Oundo was, all along, projecting his own alleged pedophilia onto innocent gay Ugandans, with the support of Martin Ssempa, U.S. taxpayer dollars, and Exodus International officials Alan Chambers and Don Schmierer.
As Truth Wins Out and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission have previously pointed out: Exodus board member Schmierer keynoted the vigilantes’ Kampala launch conference in March; Chambers approved of Schmierer’s trip beforehand, and applauded Schmierer’s speech afterward. Schmierer’s speech blamed parents and abuse for the formation of homosexual orientation. His co-speaker Scott Lively blamed homosexuals for the Nazi Holocaust and Rwandan genocide, while Ugandan ex-gay conference organizer Stephen Langa angrily complained that Uganda’s life-imprisonment sentence for homosexuality was far too lenient. A fourth speaker, U.S. ex-gay activist Caleb Lee Brundidge — a protege of former PFOX leader Richard Cohen — promoted magic rituals as a means of converting homosexual persons into heterosexuals.
Since 2004, “former lesbian” Lisa Miller has violated numerous court rulings in Vermont and Virginia that granted visitation rights to her former partner Janet Jenkins for their daughter Isabella, who was born in 2002.
After unfavorable family-court rulings, Miller worked with religious-right activists to undermine U.S. family law by demanding a special right of ex-gays and religious extremists to move from state to state to escape their family obligations. Had she succeeded, the ability of U.S. states to enforce custody and deadbeat-dad laws could have been damaged. But on June 6, 2008, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld Vermont’s jurisdiction over her former partnership and the resulting child. The Liberty Counsel then vowed to find other ways to sidestep the nation’s laws. In October, a Vermont court was to have considered jailing Miller for contempt of court.
Instead, The Rutland Herald reported, a Vermont judge “decided against punitive measures, instead imposing a new visitation schedule and ordering Jenkins and Miller to communicate directly during preparations for visits and the visits themselves.”
Miller violated that unwise compromise, and on Aug. 25, it seems, the ACLU requested that Lisa Miller be jailed in Virginia and forced to pay attorney fees. But a Virginia judge ruled that although Miller violated a Vermont judge’s visitation order, no fines would be assessed against her. The Christian Post reported, “The court ordered Miller to pay $100 per day for pending visitation orders issued in Vermont, but there are none at this time.” According to World magazine, “a Vermont judge has yet to issue a ruling following a hearing last week that considered Jenkin’s request for custody of Isabella. Later this year, the Virginia Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments on whether Virginia must enforce Vermont’s orders in the case.” The Christian Post points out, “The appeals court previously ruled that Virginia must recognize Vermont’s orders but has not ruled” on whether Virginia must actually enforce those orders.
In an interview last year, Miller maintained her claim to be ex-gay but essentially admitted she had never really been predominantly same-sex-attracted. With Jenkins in particular, she had merely sought platonic female companionship — and apparently deceived Jenkins into forming a civil union. If that is true, then Miller has spent the past five years falsely equating a true lesbian sexual orientation with her largely sexless, insecure, and emotionally unstable “lifestyle.”
Ex-gay advocate Debbie Thurman has formed a Facebook support group for Miller’s fugitive behavior against the U.S. family court system.
Dan Gilgoff’s “God and Country” blog carries a guest column by pro-exgay pundit Warren Throckmorton, who rejects accusations by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (the ex-gay think tank and lobbying group) against the American Psychological Association.
NARTH falsely accuses the APA of advising therapists to lure their clients from antigay churches to gay-tolerant or gay-affirming ones. The American Family Association’s “OneNewsNow” propaganda service parroted NARTH’s accusation without offering the APA a chance to correct prior inaccurate reporting by the Associated Press.
Hypersync wonders why ex-gay activists are conning Christian conservatives into yet another round of false labeling. Instead of acknowledging that persons’ sexual and romantic attractions are real, ex-gay talking heads at Exodus and Focus on the Family want gullible churchgoers to think attractions and basic personality traits are as changeable as one’s label, hence all same-sex-attracted people are no longer same-sex-attracted, they are now “gay-identified.”
Hypersync says: “I’m curious of the round-table conversation that drove them to this most recent change in terminology. What went on, what argument was made, what are the reasons why? I suspect that once again, they determined that their arguments are not winning the day, so they have to mix up things a bit.”
Rev. Aaron Dumas, an antigay pastor and advice columnist for The Jamaica Star, tells a lesbian that U.S. ex-gay political activists can cure her “lifestyle.” He advises her to seek out a “Christian counsellor” — certainly not one of those mainstream mental-health professionals who “would encourage you to continue to practise homosexuality.”
In observing American fundamentalism for more than a decade there is one common thread that runs through the movement. It is the romanticized idea of purity, particularly sexual and doctrinal. While the idea is ostensibly innocuous, in practice it can be insidious and always threatens to politically spin out of control.
The idea of applying purity to human beings – who are impure by definition – creates an impossible standard that can’t be met. The result is that millions of people are haunted by perceived moral failure and tortured by unnecessary guilt. Instead of producing healthy spiritual lives, this concept can create neurotic people with various complexes, who view themselves as worthless sinners. Such a damaging belief system may have a corrosive affect on self-esteem and creates needless internal conflicts.
The pursuit of unattainable perfection has led to a cottage industry of so-called “experts” who allegedly can help one achieve the unachievable. The proliferation of products and websites profiting from “purity” is problematic. There is no shortage of charlatans to fight “The War on Pleasure” and strictly forbid any form of fun for a fee. In some cases, the rules are so stringent that masturbation is considered a menace.
“God designed sex to be profound, which masturbation is not; it is shallow,” wrote Dr. Harry W. Schaumburg on the website Restoring Sexual Purity. “God made sex to be fruitful, but masturbation treats sex like a commodity rather than a capacity for producing life. God made sex to be selflessly God-centered, not self-centered and self-satisfying.”
Ultimately, religions and cults that focus on purity have an ulterior motive, which is to maintain control over the lives of its followers. If pleasure is policed, then faith-based father figures can ration it. By squeezing out the “impure” competition, such groups create a monopoly over one’s mind.
The idea of protecting the potential sinner from “falling” is as elusive a goal of purity itself. No matter how cloistered, people will seek to explore their humanity, which includes enjoyment and fulfillment. Some fundamentalists hate secular society because temptations – epitomized by the concept of demons – are often stronger than their faith.
Instead of learning the healthy practice of moderation, many of these individuals embark on the pathological path of prohibition. Indoctrinated with a “just say no” ethos, the repression builds up until the fantasies become overwhelming fetishes that spiral out of control.
Unable to extinguish the fire internally, some of these individuals work though external means – namely politics – to eliminate temptations. This is why they have feverishly fought to close down adult bookstores and nude beaches. Such nosey behavior mirrors that of the teetotalers who fought to enact the disaster known as prohibition. Those who cling to this philosophy subconsciously want to ban from society what they cannot banish in themselves. (Read More)
The antigay parents group PFOX claimed today that it has won recognition of “former homosexuals” as a protected sexual orientation in a D.C. Superior Court ruling. PFOX said:
“We are gratified that the ex-gay community in Washington D.C. now has the same civil rights that gays enjoy,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), which had filed the lawsuit against the District of Columbia government for failing to protect former homosexuals in the Nation’s Capital.
In a discrimination complaint filed by PFOX against the National Education Association (NEA) for refusing to provide public accommodations to ex-gays, the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) had agreed with the NEA that sexual orientation protection did not extend to former homosexuals. “By failing to protect former homosexuals, the sexual orientation laws gave more rights to homosexuals than heterosexuals who were once gay,” said Griggs. “So PFOX asked the Court to reverse OHR’s decision, which it did. The Court held that ex-gays are a protected class under ’sexual orientation.’”
“All sexual orientation laws and programs nationwide should now provide true diversity and equality by including former homosexuals,” said Greg Quinlan, a director of PFOX. “I have experienced more personal assaults as a former homosexual than I ever did as a gay man.”
Not so fast, Greg. The court did not reverse OHR’s decision; it ruled in June 2009 that the NEA was justified in excluding PFOX for its stridently discriminatory, antigay literature, and it chose not to reverse the decision. According to Washington City Paper:
While [Judge Maurice] Ross decided in the NEA’s favor, he also held that ex-gays do, in fact, constitute a protected group under the D.C. Human Rights Act. Judging from PFOX’s eerily celebratory press release, this is kind of a big deal for them.
According to Ross’s decision, the Human Rights Act doesn’t only protect groups defined by “immutable characteristics,” as the Office of Human Rights’ decision claimed. The Act also protects groups defined by “preference or practice” —like people who previously “practiced” gayness, and now “prefer” to practice heterosexuality:
OHR’s determination that a characteristic must be immutable to be protected under the HRA is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. . . . Indeed, the HRA lists numerous protected categories such as religion, personal appearance, familial status, and source of income, which are subject to change. . . . Pertaining to sexual orientation, moreover, the HRA in §2-1401.02(28) defines sexual orientation as “male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, by preference or practice.” Thus, the HRA’s intent and plain language eschews narrow interpretation.
But while the NEA can’t discriminate against “ex-gays,” it may legally discriminate against exhibits that are explicitly anti-gay:
The Court affirms OHR’s ultimate determination that PFOX’s application was denied legally. In NEA’s judgment, PFOX is a conversion group hostile toward gays and lesbians. Thus, even though PFOX vehemently disagrees with NEA’s characterization, it is within NEA’s right to exclude PFOX’s presence at NEA’s conventions. . . . Indeed, the HRA would not require NEA to accept an application from the Ku Klux Klan or a group viewed by the NEA as anti-labor union or racist. . . . Similarly, military organizations and the Boy Scotts of America are excluded from renting exhibit space at the NEA Annual Meetings because of the positions those organizations take with regard to gay and lesbian rights.
. . . Thus, PFOX’s arguments miss the point. The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX’s members include exgays, homosexuals, heterosexuals, or members of any other sexual orientation. Rather, NEA rejected PFOX’s application because PFOX’s message and policies were, in NEA’s opinion, contrary to NEA’s policies regarding sexual orientation.
In other words, the D.C. Human Rights Act may protect groups who identify as “ex-gay” based on their mutable, previous and current sexual “practices” but does not — contrary to PFOX’s wishes — protect ex-gay activist groups such as PFOX that seek to use other organizations as soapboxes to spread political opinions and policies that are contrary to those of the host organization.
Unfortunately, the D.C. court has also legitimized a ludicrous claim that sexual orientation can be defined by what one isn’t, rather than what one demonstrably is.
Addendum: Given a great deal of misreporting by various blogs, I wish to reiterate:
Blame for the court’s logic regarding sexual orientation lies with the D.C. Human Rights Act (HRA), which broadly defines orientation as a matter of either “preference” or “practice.” The court observed:
While [Office of Human Rights'] analysis and the Title VII cases cited by OHR speak in terms of immutable characteristics, the HRA clearly does not limit itself only to immutable characteristics. The premise of the HRA is simple: to end all discrimination based on anything other than individual merit. Numerous protected classes listed in the HRA include mutable traits. Furthermore, the definition of sexual orientation defines an individual’s sexuality as a “preference” or “practice.” D.C. Code §2-1401.01. OHR’s analysis posits that the immutability of a person’s preferred sexual orientation categorizes them as a member of a protected class. In focusing on federal discrimination cases, however, the OHR misses the broad scope of the HRA and the explicit inclusion of the term “practice” in the HRA’s definition of sexual orientation.
If PFOX truly affirms D.C.’s Human Rights Act, then it will not only respect the NEA’s right not to host hostile and discriminatory organizations such as PFOX, but also move to hire “practicing” gay people in accord with PFOX’s claim to represent both “ex-gays” and those who “practice” homosexuality.
It remains the responsibility of the D.C. Council and mayor to reconsider language in the Human Rights Act which misdefines sexual orientation as a matter of “practice” or lack thereof.
Truth Wins Out condemned Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays today for grossly exaggerating a court case they actually lost and portraying it as a victory. In reality, The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied PFOX’s claim that The National Education Association had discriminated against them in applying for a booth at the NEA convention.
In a breathless press release PFOX called their failure a “precedent setting case” and claimed that the Court ruled that “former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws.” What the court actually did was disagree with DC’s Office of Human Rights, which had said that ex-gays are not covered under the D.C. Human Rights Act, because a protected a group must show immutable characteristics.
Judge Maurice Ross said today that the DC Human Rights Amendment protects other mutable characteristics.
The HRA [Human Rights Amendment] clearly does not limit itself only to immutable characteristics. The premise of the HRA is simple: to end all discrimination based on anything other than individual merit. Numerous protected classes listed in the HRA include mutable traits.
Well, obviously, people can switch religions, for example, so technically OHR’s application of law may have been incorrect. But a victory for PFOX? Hardly.
“The court’s decision stated the obvious and the spin from PFOX’s loss is downright bizarre,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. “I think PFOX has furthered its reputation as a group that distorts the truth and exaggerates the facts to further its strange political agenda. This is a group that has no sense of reality and lives in a parallel universe devoid of reason and logic.”
“We are gratified that the ex-gay community in Washington D.C. now has the same civil rights that gays enjoy,” said Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), which had filed the lawsuit against the District of Columbia government for failing to protect former homosexuals in the Nation’s Capital.
“What is clear is that the court clearly stated that the NEA did not discriminate against Parents and Friends of Ex-gays,” said Besen.
The real reason PFOX twisted the truth was so it could confuse educators. The organization wants teachers and administrators to believe that they are in legal peril if they exclude the theories of so-called “ex-gays”.
“The NEA must also stop its bias against the NEA Ex-Gay Educators Caucus by appointing an ex-gay caucus member to the NEA Sexual Orientation Committee,” wrote PFOX, revealing its true agenda. “This committee is staffed with members of the NEA’s gay and transgender caucus, although the ex-gay caucus has asked for inclusion.”
Reba McEntire and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America this week became the two latest examples of moderate to conservative notables who uphold a grace-based policy of non-judgment toward gay and lesbian couples.
The ELCA recognized that gay Christians are a part of the Lutheran family, and voted to allow gay and lesbian clergy in committed same-sex relationships to serve as ministers.
“Keep an open mind. That would be my voice. I have gay friends. I have a lot of straight friends. I don’t judge them. I take them for what they are. They’re my friends, and I can’t defend my feelings for them, other than I like ‘em,” said McEntire. “I have gay friends who have partners, and I see where they would want to get married. I understand why. So, I can’t judge that.”
Unfortunately, Exodus International never received the memo that Christians are supposed to extend grace toward others and be humble about their own moral shortcomings. (Read More)
I was reading an excellent piece in Newsweek as to why some people were quick to believe the lie about health care death panels even after they were informed of the truth:
After unfavorable family-court rulings, Miller worked with religious-right activists to undermine U.S. family law by demanding a special right of ex-gays and religious extremists to move from state to state to escape their family obligations. Had she succeeded, the ability of U.S. states to enforce custody and deadbeat-dad laws could have been damaged. But on June 6, 2008, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld Vermont’s jurisdiction over her former partnership and the resulting child. The Liberty Counsel then vowed to find other ways to sidestep the nation’s laws. In October, a Vermont court was to have considered jailing Miller for contempt of court.
